Dr Ahmed’s response to the “decline” question is spot on. The Second French Empire is never described as being in a state of decline culminating in its destruction at the hands of the nascent German Empire in 1871. The same applies to the British, German and Russian Empires. This is because these countries’ respective historiography adheres to a sense of continuity with their past and present. Thus, no matter how many crises they underwent (similar to the Ottoman Empire), one could not describe them as “declining” as others would just point to their present state, even though they are entirely different countries from a few centuries ago. The fact that the Ottoman Empire outlasted most of them is never taken into consideration. Instead it is merely viewed through the lens of perpetual stagnation - a narrative that collapses when one thinks about it for more than 30 seconds.
Agreed, however I think the dynamic is setup simply because the Ottoman Empire, no longer IS.... In other words, NOT present. It can only be viewed in a retrograde fashion. Hard to have a "sense of continuity with past and present" when it's only the past that is... present... Now were circumstances different, and the Ottoman Empire still existed... Well, we wouldn't be having this convo now would we? lol
@@snakejuce What exactly is the difference between the Ottoman empire no longer existing and the holy roman empire no longer existing but is inevitably linked to Germany and German history. Or the Roman empire no longer existing but having a sense of continuity with Italians and Greeks. I still think you're onto something though. I would say that rather than it simply being the ottoman empire no longer existing, the people who would see themselves as a continuation or their successors stopped existing (at least politically). Which is why Turks who try to relink their past to the Ottoman empire and rekindle a sense of being one of its successor states often get accused of being "neo-Ottomans" as a derogatory term by people who don't want that to happen.
Dr Yakoob Ahmed is a gem and my favourite scholar on Ottoman history. The best thing is that he approaches the discussion from an orthadox Sunni position and does not romanticize
Is that because he is saying what you want to hear? lol Lets get a memeber of the British National party to talk about the glories of the British Empire that bought so much 'civilisation' to India?!? If you support Ottomanism then do you also support French, Russian and Japanese Imperilaism too?
@@ankhmorpok1497it's more because he doesn't do that, which the person you're replying to said, if you actually bothered reading before replying. Also you evidently haven't heard the podcast, and so all we're being presented is brain farts
@@ankhmorpok1497 I get a sense of sarcasm in your comment at the same time I am not sure if you can really compare an academician to a politician. Read your own comment again about British bringing civilization to the subcontinent.
@@ankhmorpok1497this is an interesting comment that we need to unpack. Fact is the British do get to tell the story of their past, so do the French and the works consumes this. But somehow the Ottomans and even the Japanese to a lesser extent should not have this privilege? Please tell me what in your view makes this privilege only apply to western civilization? Most have no issues consuming their version of their history with people like you lambasting them for wanting to consume it. So tell what in your eyes makes the Brits and French so special that they should have privileges you will fight to ensure others don’t.
My grandfather was the son of a poor Siberian, coal minor. He was taken to the palace and educated to become a surgeon and a captain in the army. He rose through the ranks, learned to lecture in 7 languages( in surgery). Met walli to the sultan, who was also the military gov. of Yugoslavia. His sons, top rank pashas. My grandfather, married into the family. He became the chief of hospital, chief of surgery and surgeon to Atatürk. He was sponsored by Rockefeller to help create the Sloan Kettering Institute. His daughter, my aunt married the Turkish sublime General commander of NATO forces, General of ground forces and National security advisor. Pagalı ibrahim, was a poor fisherman son but became the right hand of Suleiman, the magnificent. The Ottomans would collect children from the poorest and give them a portal to the heights of world power. Part of the collapse was that the Pasha became greedy and power-hungry, like the Armenian Pasha, who began arming his own people, and killing his own people to create his own state.
His point about certain questions being predicated on assumptions is a vital one. I've come across many online who only bring up the Ottoman Empire in the negative unfortunately. Worse yet is when an alleged "Muslim" does this. The colonized mentality is so strong that this person who believes they have transcended beyond the "kuffar" speaks and thinks exactly like the kuffar.
So you want ppl to come at Ottoman history from a favourable view? Isn't that just the other side of the assumptions you do not favour? lol Here is what you need to know. The Ottomans were overthrown by their own Muslim and Non Muslim subjects who did not wish to be ruled by them. None of the two dozen odd countries from Tunisia to Serbia want to be ruled by the Turks again. And after ISIS, any residual support for Caliphate is gone. That's why ppl like you are on the internet talking about this sort of thing. Not in real life nor taking any substantive action to bring this nonsense imperialism about on the ground. I guess you saw what happened to Mohammad Emwazi and Shameema Begum? lol
There are few modern Arab nations who's national struggles were based on being not the Turks/Ottomans, so understandably, Ottomans have been given fairly negative PR for decades in those countries, so it's understandable. On the other hand Ottomans have superstars status in Southeast Asia. As a Pakistani, when I visited Top Kapi, and Fatih Mosque in Istanbul, my eyes were filled with tears coming from pride and joy I felt being surrounded by the history of this once powerful and magnificent Islamic state.
@@f1azizbhai they won’t give you citizenship nor do they accept Muslim asylum seekers or refugees..you are as always basking in borrowed glory..what have they given you …nothing..your Arab brothers don’t allow non Arab Muslims to get citizenship in their countries too and you guys keep on shouting Muslim ummah…Turks won’t allow you to enter their country without any visas…so no point in bragging about something which is not yours…peace bhai
@@Hitchens-k9s It's just not possible for Indians to not feel personally insulted when they come across a post from a Pakistani, even if that post has nothing to do with Indians. Why can't you mind your business and spare me your lecture as if I needed it?
@@Hitchens-k9sWe are united by Islam. If some people have become ignorant it doesn't really matter. We don't crave for people's attention, it's secondary. We love Allah !!!
Listening to this incredible dialogue, I realized how whitewashed I am. I am trying to have a paradigm shift. Muslims need to learn our history from our own people. Next, we need great PR to disseminate this true knowledge.
What makes him special in my view is the ability to place our history within the Islamic framework and present Ottoman narrative from Islamic worldview. Checkout his previous podcast on this channel specifically on the printing press issue. You'll know what I mean.
As a Turk in Germany belonging to a minority, I can understand the Pakistanis in the UK. We all make the same experience. And you will always be welcome in Türkiye!
I wish I knew the Thinking Muslim platform when I was living in Istanbul. Çok teşekkürler for this amazing content and the wonderful guests you have been hosting!
Another comment from me: we need more of this. I love the deep discussion in this world full of tiktokers. Actually as an Arab, I'd love to learn more about the history of Islam in the Indian subcontinent
The opening question of "who wrote this history?" Is what all history classes should be based on. It's hiSTORY. Who wrote it and who that narrative benefits are such essential questions.
I hate to sound like a broken record but again I’m blown away by the depth of conversations I find on this channel. As a person who has been very interested in Ottoman history for over 20 years and obviously consumed most of what I know from western sources. I had no that most Muslim nations outside of Turkiye were also consuming their Ottoman history from western sources. That is really strange on a fundamental level. That would almost be akin to France’s entire knowledge base on what the Roman Empire was being seen through the looking glass of what the Chinese for example thought of the Romans. Or better yet how the modern Middle East saw the Romans. I’d imagine it hard to build deep meaningful ties with anyone after having zero basis or knowledge of the shared history between the two groups. Or worse when your only knowledge about them is based on false narratives which I’d imagine are harmful. You learn something new and interesting here all the time.
Great podcast, very timely too with a lot of ill informed people teaching nonsense about the Ottomans, even by badly informed so called muslim scholars. It would be great if you could find someone like Dr Ahmed on the Mughals.
@@shehzebimam4991Mughals we’re plunderers who came to India to loot,enslave and destroy places of worship…no Indian king ever invaded or attacked any Muslim country..still Mohamad gaznavi ,khilji,Ghori,Qasim,Babar invaded India to spread peace and harmony as prescribed in your book..they looted ,slaughterd millions of Indians,destroyed thousands of temples and enslaved helpless women for 800 years….thousands of out Rajpoot women used to commit mass suicide to avoid been rap*d and enslavd by these invading moguls….
Amazing work, I am a Muslim from India living in Germany and I love history in general and Ottoman history in particular. May Allah reward you both immensely for this. Keep growing
All well-meaning Muslims have a particular predilection and warm regards to the Ottoman period in particular. And if a Muslim does not, then that person's deen is in question, in my absolutely honest opinion. There are usually 3 types of people that vehemently speak negatively about the Ottoman period, these are 1) "Western" powers who hate to see an Islamic empire thrive 2) Sahyoonis (along with their middle eastern allies) 3) Wahhabi types
@@snakejuce I know a few "Wahhabi types" (Muslim brothers Alhamdulillah) who even though might not be fans of the Ottoman rule, they have their issues, but stay neutral and leave the matter to Allah, which is the best thing to do as Ottomans don't even exist to defend themselves.
@snakejuce Honestly, I have heard more Indians say positive things about the British than Arabs say anything positive about the Ottomans. Which is interesting because the post-Ottoman middle east has not been great.
@@juniorjames7076 Indians adopted British language and culture and are connected to Anglo/British economic, financial, political and legal systems. This is not the case with the Arabs, there was a complete break-up between the Arabs and the Turks post-Ottomans.
@@f1aziz Indians adopted English because India has 50+ languages, and you need some language to communicate. English, not being an Indian language, became that language. Also, before the British left, they had established economic, financial, political, and legal systems, and to continue with them was easier than scrapping out and installing a new system.
Another exceptional guest and episode of TTM. Loved every minute. Especially the reality behind the printing press ban and the partial coffee ban. Thank you as always Br. Jalal!
it's false actualy. all the people in turkey love southeast asian muslims for their historical boundries yet it's not shown on mainstream media enough.
@F1aziz, anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time knows the vast majority of Turks not only give the Ottomans a fair shake, they go beyond that and form a narrative that many times sweeps many bad things under the rug. What you're saying was probably true from the 1920s to roughly the 1970s. Their narrative of why they went through a traumatic civilizational defeat was because of the faults of the Ottomans. People born after 1970 generally don't hold on to that narrative, they've gone in the opposite direction.
Thinking Muslim in essence is a top notch source for the revival of Ummatic self esteem motivation and above all bonding and unification The esteemed guest here provided historic perspective on the topic in a very befitting articulate almost spiritual way
Alhamdulilah for a thoroughly stimulating session. I have been trying to learn islamic history of late and look fwd to Dr Yaakoob book on the Ottoman Empire history.....
I like the way Dr Yaqoob pauses and thinks about the question and then asks a counter question in a philosophical way. For example he asks what is moderanity? How do you define modernaity? Is it a way to synchronise or what? And then he build his entire argument around that question. I think all Muslims needs to ask questions and stop believing in things which are put out of context. To understand moderanity we need to understand how our ancestors think about moderanity? When we say knowledge is only in books we should pause and think for a moment and say he what I just heard was also knowledge etc etc.
Such a conscientious and deep thinking speaker, maa shaa Allah, and the interviewer's acceptance of his overturning his whole stance opened up some really worthwhile insights . Jazzakum allahu khairan.
Coffee was actually a part of marital law. It was in the law books written that, If the husband could not or did not provide coffee for the wife, it was grounds for divorce in Ottoman Turkish Law. The ban of coffee was a Christian Pope because it was considered a muslim drink. When Ottomans withdrew from the battlefield, this bean was left behind. It was illegal, until the pope baptized a bag and called it a Holy Christian drink now. True factoid.
Thank you for this awesome podcast. I will appreciate if Dr. Yakoob can suggest books about ottoman history. Also book about Abdul Hamid Han 2 in English JazakAllah khayran
Amazing podcast as always. I feel more intelligent and inspired after watching it! I would also love to get a hold of the TTM mug would enjoy drinking my morning brew(coffee) from it! 😊 Have you considered selling such a product?
Excellent discussion! Thank you so much! I would be interested in hearing Dr. Ahmed’s commentary/analysis of Benedict Anderson’s _Imagined Communities_ on the printing press, “simultaneity,” religion, nationalism & the nation state
I am a historian by profession and I can say that his historic and particularly ottoman worldwiev is so clear of prejudictions. A very learned scholar.
I thought coffe was prohibited because the Portuguese controlled the routes where coffee was coming out of, and buying coffee would mean supporting/strengthening the Portuguese kingdom, as Ottomans fought/ were fighting on several fronts with the Portuguese.
Maybe there were those considerations in place as well. I think the point he's trying to make is that there were multiple considerations including political ones at play. It wasn't simply ignorant people making random rulings, it's a lot more complex and considered than that.
At coffee shops, janissaries were gathering and planning for a coup; they were also do agenda and propaganda against the ottoman sultan. So, due to the intelligence sultan Got from his intelligence servise he made this coffee ban.
YES THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASON, BECAUSE MOST OF THE COFFEE WAS PLANTED IN SOUTH EAST ASIA AND THE PORTUGUESE WERE FIGHTING WITH MUSLIM IN SOUTH EAST ASIA AND INDIA.
Mashalah very useful podcast, thank you and jazakumullahu khayr, The Ottoman history is one of the most neglected in the world, unfortunately the Turkish state is not paying enough attention and resources to explore this 700 years old empire which ruled 32 countries in three continents, i heard once from an islamic historian scholar Sheikh Ragheb Sarjan who is one of the best islamic historian saying some of the main obsticles of exploring the Ottoman history, he said that there are at least 7 million untranslated files in Turkey let alone the other millions of historic files in the balkans, the lavant, north africa and the Caucases, the other obstical he mentioned was the disconnection between the classical old Turkish which was written in arabic and which these files were recorded and the modern Attatorkean latin written modernTurkish. So, the Islamic world especially Turkey needs to alocate huge funds and scholars to explore and record this history deeply and academically. Shukran
Its a conundrum for modern Arab intellectuals. It seems you can't call yourself a modern (or patriotic) Syrian, Egyptian, Tunisian, etc if you have anything good to say about the Ottoman years. Were the Ottoman's to Yemen the equivalent as the French to Algeria or Senegal? Britain to India? I have heard Indians say more positive things about the British than Egyptians or Lebanese say anything positive about the Ottomans.
@@juniorjames7076thats the only reason we have 7 million untranslated files ..Turks but more importantly all islamic world has been seperated and destroyed massivly not just by war but by education before and after ww1 .untill today there is no sign of a peace in omajority of Ottoman led states up untill today.not only muslim states buy also balkan states too.İf Egypt and Lebanon or Algeria talk more positive about french and english in your case,well its very simple to answer .is because they asimilated and genocided those nations really fast…nor because they are angels.Brits went to Australia and New Zealand and killed Maori and Abeogine culturea ib such a short time .they even think Jesus is Maori.İn rotorua churches christ is Maori…Where Turks or Ottomans have let people of the stete live freely in their languages and culture and religion masive portion of their denisty
Give details please. When Sarjan said that ''7 million files are waiting to be translated''? Please type the name ''Halil İnalcık''. Each historian knows that they can start with this monumental historian of Ottoman Empire. There is surely no 7 million non-translated document or else. We are not expecting some discovery of a document coming from some Ottoman Turkish documents in Albania or else. Atatürk is the reason they are standardized in a scientific way in academies- oh and he is the FIRST leader in Turkish history that called a well-known respected theologian and Quran scholar and ask him to translate the book to common Turkish.
@@mertnecati875 the lectures of the islamic historian Dr Ragheb alserjani on the history of the ottoman empire is in youtube, a total of 11 lectures in arabic, the quote i made on my post is on the first and second lectures, youtube will not allow me to post the link but if you copy and paste this on you tube it will popup. قصة الدولة العثمانية: محسنة الصوت - د. راغب السرجانى
1:32:12 I love this point about finding alternative, and more wholesome, ways of continuously teaching history. Almost as if it needs to be a part of the generational culture
Liked how you first described the devşirme system around 54:00 mark and than went "this is what it means, now make up your mind accordingly". Better example then Mimar Sinan would have been Sokullu Mehmet Paşa who was the grand vizier during the height of ottoman power. He was originally an orthodox christian Serb. We know this because when he visited these lands, his mother seeing the birthmark on his face recognized him. After that he made his brother the head of Serbian Orhadox church. And there are many many more examples of devşirme grand viziers and pashas (including made famous by Turkish soap operas, İbrahim Paşa)
I listened to him for 30min. He didn't answer the question of why the muslim ottoman rulers banned printing press. The Europeans were against it as well. European will not play with words as he does. He doesn't accept the reality and plays with words. If they did ban printing press they didn't want to change. The so-called muslim scholars likr yakoob ahmad still cling undefenceable.
Also, Ahmet Kuru writes that in 1727, İbrahim Mutafarrika petitioned the Ottoman Sultan and it was then allowed but it was restricted to printing of non religious texts. The primary text is Firman of Ahmed III. [Quoted in Kuru, islam, authoritarianism, and underdevelopment. 2019. Chapter 7]
Sorry to be the one to say it but: CAN YOU PLEASE JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION? It’s very simple there’s no need for any philosophical argument! Did the printing press play a role or not? If so then how? If we’ve got it wrong just tell us!
Look if I see you in a cafe, I'm not gonna ask you any annoying questions, but I'll try and find your book and maybe ask you to autograph it cuz this is an amazing talk bro.
Great topic? Really|? Muslims are some of the poorest and least educated around the world. Instead of dealing with real issues that affect everyday life we have people masturbating to this fantastical ahistorical nonsense of Imperialistic porn, that won't help any Muslims?
the Ottomans were the Best Islamic empire ... why we should criticize them ??? Go and criticize your dictators in the middle if you have balls ... @@abdulkhaled5145
Interesting and informative, thank you and your guest. Would just kindly suggest avoiding click bait titles that throw out all the subtlety in the discussion out the window.
May I suggest recounting all the scientific miracles of the Quran, like we created all living things from water, we brought down iron, we created everything from nothing and are expanding the universe, etc. When did these things become known? It would be very interesting. Thank you.
@@notadaneso a historian teaching nuances of human history is dismissed after listening to 15 minutes by an absolute dilhole? Farangi aulads are debunked and can't handle it
His description of devşirme was quiet wrong. The reason they took mainly non Muslims to become sultan's personal guards or statemen was so they wouldn't have any connection to outside and be able to have claims to power! Only a small part of the forces were devşirme (yeni çeri) so not every non muslims had to give away their sons but a small part when needed and mostly they competed to give away their sons for a great future. That is also the reason the sultans mainly married harem girls.
@@Bizmyurt Adam, devşirme sisteminin nasıl olduğu ile ilgili konuşmadı ki! Videonun neredeyse tamamı Osmanlı dönemine karşı oryentalist bakış açısının ve bakış açısının sorulara bile etki etmesinden bahsetti ve tarihi bakışın nasıl olması gerektiğinden bahsetti; devşirme konusu oradan açıldı.
@@Bizmyurtdevşirme konusuna kısaca değindi ama videodan anladığı kadarıyla insaların aklında devşirme denince abd deki kölelik sistemi gibi bir şey canlanıyor, devşirmenin ne olduğunu tam olarak anlamamışlar. Hoca da ona kosaca değindi ama sizin dediğiniz noktalara değinip önce devşirmenin mantığını bir açıklaması gerekiyordu. 1 2 nokta gözetilerek değil birden çok yapı düşünülerek yapılmış bir sistem devşirmelil çünkü. Ama hoca da tam da bu yüzden bana soru sormanızı değil tarihi biraz araştırıp bu oryantalist bakış açısından kurtulmanızı istiyorum dedi.
I found Turkish TV years ago. I used to send money to assist with translations. My interest began in earnest after watching the Abdul Hamid II episodes on Turkish TV not "western Netflix" which has nothing of interest for me.
I dont see how this guy can defend the Ottoman taking Boys from the Christian communites conscipting them as soliders and converting them to Islam against their will. Some Christian mothers used to brake their own son legs so they could not being conscripted. So that was not a good thing
He didn't defend it, he just said it was better than the usual alternative back then, which usually involved the child being slaughtered, mother being you know what. I mean we all know the mongols and how they were.
Jazaa kAllahu khairah fid daarain. May Allah increase both of you and us all, in ilm and hilm and take work from us, for the guidance and welfare of the Ummah
I should say it was interesting to watch. Most of Turks aren't even aware of these myth's in general. But Mr.Yakoop seems to have a certain level of understanding about the Ottoman era. But Ottoman's didn't called themselves as an Empire the word was (Devlet-i Ali or Aliyye) meaning (Büyük, yüce devlet) in Turkish. Supreme or Great State in English. No need to describe themselves other than that.
True. Just to add to that, Urdu-speaking Muslims call it "Usmaani Khilafat". The word khilafah is always emphasized as they were brought up by their mothers with the idea that if or when Khalifa calls upon them they are ready to give their lives in an instant. My own family narrated how the womenfolk gave up all their gold, to the Khilafat Movement in the 1920s.
Ottomans did not have much population at the beginning, they were the smallest 'beylik', but on the frontier. They made alliances with Christians to make up for the deficit. After they crossed the straights, they started recruiting from Christians. Keep in mind that local Christians hated Venetians more, and they would prefer Ottomans over Venetians. To be selected for the service was very competitive, and they did not view it as slavery. Talented kids would be sent to palace school.
What’s the criteria for being khalifa. Simply put, external validation. The only American treaty introduced, written, signed in a language other than English was Turkish. The Russians, the French, British, Japanese, Irish. The Hyderbad Indian, Egyptian, Persian , even king Faisal took wife, from the sultans and Pashas for prestige. The wife of Faisal walked ahead of him into all kingdom business, he opened the doors for her. She called council of religious clerics to meet as their head. Even after Faisal’s death she commanded respect and direction in the Kingdom. Influence in Army. Many Pashas daughters were trained to command armies and were taken as wives by Kings and Emperors. Even Ataturks daughter was a fighter pilot. Many Arab heads of government, like in Morroco would wash their identity with Turkish identity and titles. The recognized power by default becomes the defender of the faith.
The whole corpus of questions are wrong :) This reminds me Prof Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas. Decades ago, he advised to always question the validity of a question, the assumptions behind the question.
I guess its a conundrum for modern Arab intellectuals. It seems you can't call yourself a modern (or patriotic) Syrian, Egyptian, Tunisian, etc if you have anything good to say about the Ottoman years. Were the Ottoman's to Yemen the equivalent as the French to Algeria or Senegal? Britain to India? I have heard Indians say more positive things about the British than Egyptians or Lebanese say anything positive about the Ottomans.
Fact check at 32:15: I believe Western Europe got the printing press much earlier than 1700. Johannes Gutenberg invented it in 1440 and cities adopted it as early as 1450.
Ottoman's main problem was demographic. Whille the population of Europe was increasing starting from 1700's, Ottoman population was declining. Their policy towards the Europeans were based on exploiting the rivalries between them. That was not always successful especially after the rise of Russia. Printing press issue is exaggerated. Also, culturally they were still nomadic, and did not focus that much on agriculture. I think what caused its demise is inapptitude of the Union and Progress party and their hatred for Ottomans.
I didn't find this discussion fruitful tbh. Dr Yakoob is going against the western colonial narrative, that's good. However he doesn't have a substantiated alternative narrative. His points are speculative in nature. Had he shown us some real statistics or references regarding the literacy in Ottomans despite the absence of printing press, it would be more reliable. It's a statistical fact that without physical copy of a book, it is hard to keep up the literacy rates. Certain eager personalities will definitely find their way to reach to books, for sure. However reach of knowledge to the masses relies on availability of physical copies.
I think that the problem is that discussion about Ottoman history amongst the Islamic political activist milieu isn't just discussion of a historical era. It's attempting to revive the idea of a Caliphate. They aspire to the restablishment of a similar system in the future. That is partly why Yacoob doesn't have an alternative narrative to promote. We all saw the rise of ISIS. Most people don't want that.
Yes you're right he never made a claim without evidence or proposed an alternative narrative in this podcast, he simply deconstructed some popularised notions which is a good first step for the average muslim to understand before starting off with false assumptions. At the current state of the umma this content is much needed. Maybe not for a history student but very fruitful for the masses imo.
@@oayysz8909 deconstruction is not enough without an alternative narrative. After all, as Muslims we have ask for evidence based on Quranic injunctions.
You haven't understood anything if you're still thinking in terms of literacy rates. He mentioned 3 points regarding this: 1. Major point - knowledge production in the Muslim world placed more emphasis on the oral tradition as opposed the written one. Even written books and poems were expected to be memorised and authors would teach their books, as opposed to readers simply reading them. Hence unlike in Western Europe, low literacy rate does not mean low knowledge production or low access to knowledge. 2. Minor point - data collection in Ottoman censuses was different. They counted households, not individuals as such. That impacts your data on literacy rates. 3. Minor point - literacy rate is not a reflection of intelligence or sophistication of thought (unlike in Western Europe), due once again to the predominance of the oral tradition.
It was an economic and a religious reason that for this question, it was only the Qur'aan which was not allowed to be printed in the printing press. The economic reason was that then the scribes would lose out on economic aspects, and so they would not allow the Qur'aan to be printed by a machine. The religious reason was that they though it was a disrespect to the Qur'aan to be printed in a machine.
It was a political movement by some one to gain power It's like mixing Trump with human rights It's all political they try to divide people on anything even when there is none How would one divide a Muslim nation Make a division interpretation then pretend to be the savior of that division if they do cared about muslims they won't be k their own brother fo power
Sahih al-Bukhari 2928 Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."
1:00:00 bro what do you mean turks and kurds converting in the ottoman period?? Dr they were muslims 300+ years before that you talking about Almuqadimah Dr have you even read it? sooo many funny thing being said here
There's a general understanding that Arabs became Muslim during Rasul Allah's time, reality on the ground was, plenty of pagan Arabs were becoming Muslim even as late as Abbasid period. No group of people ever became Muslim in their entirety in one go, Islamisation as a process is a long and very slow process.
@Muhammadarubah8672. It seems his intentions were good and he does bring up philosophical points which are quite interesting. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of Ottoman history, he does make some really odd mistakes. Like the one you pointed out, even the Empire from who's ashes the Ottoman empire was built (Seljuks) was a Muslim empire. How in the world does this guy not know that? Some random guy like me sitting in America knows that and a so-called expert in Ottoman history doesn't? It is very interesting. Turks started accepting Islam in 751 with the tribes of Karluk, Yagma and Cilgiz accepted Islam and then started spreading it ot the other tribes. The Ottoman empire didn't come for another 300+ years like you said.
@@najmaalikhan Even though his knowledge of the history is quite lacking, I still felt he had something to offer. It was still worth a watch and it was still fascinating. Surely it would have been better if he actually know Ottoman history lol
'So if you think devshirme system is like colonial slavery, it was not that bad. They didn't make a scene with it. And the villages would have thus a foothold in the palace. Of course, no one is happy to be conquered, to be conquered. But I don't want to legitimise Ottomans.'
Masha’Allah… I hope you all give this man SOME TYPE of leeway & an try to understand what he’s trying to SAY without any prejudice, biases & jus listen to his perspective. The level of DIFFICULTY in trying to explain “things like, True State History/Religion History” in this era/generation is by far one of the MOST DIFFICULT Things to do. Especially in a LANGUAGE like ENGLISH in which it Radicalizes, Disorientates, & Confuses each & every TRANSLATION. I can BET you whenever he’s done with these lectures he will always feel like he “DID’NT do well & he COULD’VE explained it better..” but Masha’Allah brother WE all got you Insha’Allah, we’re jus in a time of سوء الفهم. ☪️☪️
Asalamu Aleykum bro, I would really love if you would asked Dr. Yaqoob Ahmed if he could write book on how to approach or Change the mindset of the narrative about history. I absolutely love his approach may Allah SWT reward him in this dunya and hereafter ameen. 39:57 absolutely floored when he said “khaad which the Somalis and Yemenis chew” 🤣🤣🤣😂😂
Ma'sha'Allah shayhk, many of us desire a Thinking Muslim cup. The cup for many, I'm sure, represents the essence of the wahi & purpose of/for the shariah for all humanity.
Good God. There is so much wrong I can’t believe it. As a Turk this is truly shocking. It’s not cause he’s isn’t Turk if he was Turkish I’d have said the same. But this is truly truly shocking. So much false information I’m not even able to get into all of it without having to write a book. I’m really impressed of how many people buy into this.
1:10:44 In my humble opinion, we acknowledge only five Caliphs: Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه, Uthman رضي الله عنه, Umar رضي الله عنه, Ali رضي الله عنه, and Umar Bin Abdul Aziz. The legitimacy of the subsequent Caliphates-namely the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman Caliphates-is subject to debate due to several reasons. 1. Method of Selecting New Caliphs: The approach to choosing new caliphs in these empires is seen by some as being at variance with established principles, raising questions about the legitimacy of the leaders chosen. 2. Adherence to Islamic Law and Justice: The perception is that the laws and justice administered were not consistently in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. There appeared to be a selective adoption of laws from the Quran and Sunnah, with some being disregarded or neglected. 3. Lifestyle Choices: The manner of living and the lifestyle choices made by some caliphs appear to have been incongruous with the principles and values of Islam. For example, the opulence and extravagance displayed by certain caliphs in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods-such as the construction of palatial residences, indulgence in luxuries, and hosting of lavish feasts-are often contrasted with the simpler, more austere lifestyles of the early Caliphs like Abu Bakr and Umar رضي الله عنهما. Such disparities raise questions about the alignment of these later caliphs' lifestyles with the teachings of Islam, which emphasize humility, simplicity, and concern for the less fortunate. 4. Propagation of Tribalism: The promotion of tribal affiliations and loyalties seems to have overridden the universal principles of brotherhood and equality in Islam. Recognizing and addressing these concerns is our responsibility. We must uphold our values and not deviate from the righteous path, being cautious not to blindly follow any leader merely out of affection or allegiance, but to hold them to the standards set by our faith.
"We,"? Is this a scholarly take? There is a genuine and strong opinion that the Khalifah must be Qurayshi, which means the last Abbasid Khalifah in Baghdad Al- Musta'sim was legit according to this view. Their alleged vices did not cancel the legitimacy of their rule.
would love such a podcast on the history of muslim rule in India, the good the bad and the ugly. Just like you , i am from the indian subcontinent luckily my ancestors there became muslims just like yours , I live in the UK now, but would love to learn about muslim history in India from a muslim or even a neutral perspective. I have the hindu perspective which says the muslim rulers were all bad with possible exception of Akbar, the rest carried out wholesale atrocities against the hindus. demolishing their temples forcefully converting people like our forefathers, killing hindus in the millions. I know this is just Hihutva rubbish but would like a balanced and a real history of muslims in India, this would also be a good way to counter the none sense that comes from most hindus and helps the poor muslims in India who on a daily basis have to deal with a hostile and tyrannical hindu nationalism, maybe even have an honest and balanced hindu historian / intellectual. Would be good to have a none muslim just like you had clive stafford smith on a few weeks ago, and may Allah bless and protect that man and the amazing work he does. Alhamdullilah so glad to see your channel growing, I still remember when you had just a few thousand subscribers
I guess its a conundrum for modern Arab intellectuals. You can't call yourself a modern (or patriotic) Syrian, Egyptian, Tunisian, etc if you have anything good to say about the Ottoman years. Were the Ottoman's to Yemen the equivalent as the French to Algeria or Senegal? Britain to India? I have heard Indians say more positive things about the British than Egyptians or Lebanese say anything positive about the Ottomans.
Sad that you are blinkered as is evident from your loaded language. India began its decline with muslim rule which gradually impoverished the country over a few centuries and the British made it worse as they were looters too. The facts about the atrocities are based mostly on "triumphant" recordings of contemporary Muslim chroniclers most of them courtiers too. As for Akbar (whom many contemporary chroniclers thought was fairly Unislamic) had his share of such things but he did tax muslim farmers 10% and Hindu farmers over 60% of the produce (source Irfan Habib's student Musevi who is also a historian). And the farmers stopped farming as they were broke and quite a few were imprisoned or killed.Instead of using abuse better spend some time learning the truth for a change. The simple fact of the absence of ancient seats of learning and temples(all destroyed) in North India compared to the deep south is the tip of the iceberg as to what happened. At least try to read the First volume of Will Durant's Story of civilisation(neutral) might perhaps open your eyes.( A few well educated Pakistanis have begun to have a critical look at their pre 1947 history)
@@juniorjames7076once again you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about lol😂😂😂. In Egypt and the rest of North Africa and the levant all the respectable Arab intellectuals all praise the ottoman period just like the mamluks or the Abbasids or the ummayeds so you should research what you are talking about
@@user-vb6df4sd8d I heard that the most negative thing they did in North Africa was that they did nothing. They didn't do atrocities or oppress them like the colonialists, but they didn't also build schools, infrastructure and hospitals.
@@narendraadiwibowo162 not exactly lots of things were developed in the mainland ottoman land plus the the rest of the vassal states so both parties benefited a lot. Listen to be clear the 3 main islamic states: the ummayeds,Abbasids,ottomans operated similarly to the US nowadays where all the different parts operated somewhat independently in domestic matters while you answered to the the central government ( or where the muslim capital was at the time)
this is just an apologist argument...not a historical analysis..just bunch of fancy vague wordings..but no historical fact based information....just answer the questions not give generals about ottoman history and finish it by asking the audience to just study the history themselves
I thought I'd listen for a while, but I couldn't resist. This man really has very poor knowledge of Turkish and Ottoman history. In addition, I recommend you to listen to these topics from a Turkish expert in his field. For example, İlber Ortaylı, Ahmet Şimşirgil
Prophet Mohammad: Leave the Turks alone, as long as they leave you. Alhamdulillah we Muslim Turks thankfull for Allah being the soldiers of Allah! Allah has gives us something speciale we can not ignore! But yes after the Ottoman Empire collapsed 1923 A lot has change unfortunately! They let us change our clothes, writing, azan, forbidden quran, ended the Khalifa, hang a lot of Islamic Scholars etc etc. But Allah is all knowing! InsAllah when Mahdi AS appears we join all together!
We have a 1 to 1000 ratio of historians to scholars. While all are Important I think that's where our biggest problem is. The majority of Muslims don’t know our history from 3 decades back let alone centuries. Please someone with knowledge of our history put together a series of books, videos, a course, anything, just tell me where to type in card info, please.
Dr Ahmed’s response to the “decline” question is spot on. The Second French Empire is never described as being in a state of decline culminating in its destruction at the hands of the nascent German Empire in 1871. The same applies to the British, German and Russian Empires. This is because these countries’ respective historiography adheres to a sense of continuity with their past and present. Thus, no matter how many crises they underwent (similar to the Ottoman Empire), one could not describe them as “declining” as others would just point to their present state, even though they are entirely different countries from a few centuries ago.
The fact that the Ottoman Empire outlasted most of them is never taken into consideration. Instead it is merely viewed through the lens of perpetual stagnation - a narrative that collapses when one thinks about it for more than 30 seconds.
Agreed, however I think the dynamic is setup simply because the Ottoman Empire, no longer IS.... In other words, NOT present.
It can only be viewed in a retrograde fashion. Hard to have a "sense of continuity with past and present" when it's only the past that is... present...
Now were circumstances different, and the Ottoman Empire still existed... Well, we wouldn't be having this convo now would we? lol
Spot on Masha'Allah.
All empires will rise and fall its what history shows, but Islam will remain no matter what happens. In sha Allah Ameen
If Allah wills
czcams.com/video/2SusIXxW-jg/video.html
@@snakejuce What exactly is the difference between the Ottoman empire no longer existing and the holy roman empire no longer existing but is inevitably linked to Germany and German history. Or the Roman empire no longer existing but having a sense of continuity with Italians and Greeks. I still think you're onto something though. I would say that rather than it simply being the ottoman empire no longer existing, the people who would see themselves as a continuation or their successors stopped existing (at least politically). Which is why Turks who try to relink their past to the Ottoman empire and rekindle a sense of being one of its successor states often get accused of being "neo-Ottomans" as a derogatory term by people who don't want that to happen.
Please give him a series to teach history. Take my money for that.
Perhaps. Before doing that, he needs to get some of his dates accurate.
WHAT DATES?@@paulheydarian1281
🎯 wallet out, ready.
He is teaching at qasas
Dr Yakoob Ahmed is a gem and my favourite scholar on Ottoman history. The best thing is that he approaches the discussion from an orthadox Sunni position and does not romanticize
Is that because he is saying what you want to hear? lol
Lets get a memeber of the British National party to talk about the glories of the British Empire that bought so much 'civilisation' to India?!?
If you support Ottomanism then do you also support French, Russian and Japanese Imperilaism too?
@@ankhmorpok1497it's more because he doesn't do that, which the person you're replying to said, if you actually bothered reading before replying. Also you evidently haven't heard the podcast, and so all we're being presented is brain farts
@@ankhmorpok1497 I get a sense of sarcasm in your comment at the same time I am not sure if you can really compare an academician to a politician. Read your own comment again about British bringing civilization to the subcontinent.
@@ankhmorpok1497this is an interesting comment that we need to unpack.
Fact is the British do get to tell the story of their past, so do the French and the works consumes this.
But somehow the Ottomans and even the Japanese to a lesser extent should not have this privilege? Please tell me what in your view makes this privilege only apply to western civilization?
Most have no issues consuming their version of their history with people like you lambasting them for wanting to consume it.
So tell what in your eyes makes the Brits and French so special that they should have privileges you will fight to ensure others don’t.
@@ankhmorpok1497take your liberal secular thoughts to somewhere else.
we as muslim talking based on Islamic prospective
My grandfather was the son of a poor Siberian, coal minor. He was taken to the palace and educated to become a surgeon and a captain in the army. He rose through the ranks, learned to lecture in 7 languages( in surgery). Met walli to the sultan, who was also the military gov. of Yugoslavia. His sons, top rank pashas. My grandfather, married into the family. He became the chief of hospital, chief of surgery and surgeon to Atatürk. He was sponsored by Rockefeller to help create the Sloan Kettering Institute. His daughter, my aunt married the Turkish sublime General commander of NATO forces, General of ground forces and National security advisor.
Pagalı ibrahim, was a poor fisherman son but became the right hand of Suleiman, the magnificent.
The Ottomans would collect children from the poorest and give them a portal to the heights of world power.
Part of the collapse was that the Pasha became greedy and power-hungry, like the Armenian Pasha, who began arming his own people, and killing his own people to create his own state.
His point about certain questions being predicated on assumptions is a vital one. I've come across many online who only bring up the Ottoman Empire in the negative unfortunately.
Worse yet is when an alleged "Muslim" does this. The colonized mentality is so strong that this person who believes they have transcended beyond the "kuffar" speaks and thinks exactly like the kuffar.
So you want ppl to come at Ottoman history from a favourable view? Isn't that just the other side of the assumptions you do not favour? lol
Here is what you need to know.
The Ottomans were overthrown by their own Muslim and Non Muslim subjects who did not wish to be ruled by them.
None of the two dozen odd countries from Tunisia to Serbia want to be ruled by the Turks again.
And after ISIS, any residual support for Caliphate is gone.
That's why ppl like you are on the internet talking about this sort of thing. Not in real life nor taking any substantive action to bring this nonsense imperialism about on the ground. I guess you saw what happened to Mohammad Emwazi and Shameema Begum? lol
There are few modern Arab nations who's national struggles were based on being not the Turks/Ottomans, so understandably, Ottomans have been given fairly negative PR for decades in those countries, so it's understandable.
On the other hand Ottomans have superstars status in Southeast Asia. As a Pakistani, when I visited Top Kapi, and Fatih Mosque in Istanbul, my eyes were filled with tears coming from pride and joy I felt being surrounded by the history of this once powerful and magnificent Islamic state.
@@f1azizbhai they won’t give you citizenship nor do they accept Muslim asylum seekers or refugees..you are as always basking in borrowed glory..what have they given you …nothing..your Arab brothers don’t allow non Arab Muslims to get citizenship in their countries too and you guys keep on shouting Muslim ummah…Turks won’t allow you to enter their country without any visas…so no point in bragging about something which is not yours…peace bhai
@@Hitchens-k9s It's just not possible for Indians to not feel personally insulted when they come across a post from a Pakistani, even if that post has nothing to do with Indians.
Why can't you mind your business and spare me your lecture as if I needed it?
@@Hitchens-k9sWe are united by Islam. If some people have become ignorant it doesn't really matter. We don't crave for people's attention, it's secondary. We love Allah !!!
Listening to this incredible dialogue, I realized how whitewashed I am. I am trying to have a paradigm shift. Muslims need to learn our history from our own people. Next, we need great PR to disseminate this true knowledge.
Dr. Yakoob managed to make me question the origin of all the information and historical knowledge I had gained.
That is very true.
And you should
You should, definitely
What makes him special in my view is the ability to place our history within the Islamic framework and present Ottoman narrative from Islamic worldview.
Checkout his previous podcast on this channel specifically on the printing press issue. You'll know what I mean.
As a Turk in Germany belonging to a minority, I can understand the Pakistanis in the UK. We all make the same experience. And you will always be welcome in Türkiye!
The way he answered the first answer is extraordinary
I wish I knew the Thinking Muslim platform when I was living in Istanbul. Çok teşekkürler for this amazing content and the wonderful guests you have been hosting!
Another comment from me: we need more of this. I love the deep discussion in this world full of tiktokers.
Actually as an Arab, I'd love to learn more about the history of Islam in the Indian subcontinent
The opening question of "who wrote this history?" Is what all history classes should be based on. It's hiSTORY. Who wrote it and who that narrative benefits are such essential questions.
All the topics covered here are intriguing and fascinating.well done thinking muslim❤ the ottoman empire❤️
Dr yakoob is great. Thanks for having him.
I hate to sound like a broken record but again I’m blown away by the depth of conversations I find on this channel.
As a person who has been very interested in Ottoman history for over 20 years and obviously consumed most of what I know from western sources. I had no that most Muslim nations outside of Turkiye were also consuming their Ottoman history from western sources.
That is really strange on a fundamental level. That would almost be akin to France’s entire knowledge base on what the Roman Empire was being seen through the looking glass of what the Chinese for example thought of the Romans. Or better yet how the modern Middle East saw the Romans.
I’d imagine it hard to build deep meaningful ties with anyone after having zero basis or knowledge of the shared history between the two groups. Or worse when your only knowledge about them is based on false narratives which I’d imagine are harmful.
You learn something new and interesting here all the time.
The line up of panelists of late has been nothing short of spectacular, Maashaa Allah.
As an American revert to Islam, this is a fascinating perspective I rarely get to hear. Well done, gentlemen.
You’re a shame for your ancestors
I teared up when he said 'these are still my people, this is still my ummah.'
Great podcast, very timely too with a lot of ill informed people teaching nonsense about the Ottomans, even by badly informed so called muslim scholars. It would be great if you could find someone like Dr Ahmed on the Mughals.
Saudis
agreed, we need a Mughal equivalent for sure!
@@shehzebimam4991Mughals we’re plunderers who came to India to loot,enslave and destroy places of worship…no Indian king ever invaded or attacked any Muslim country..still Mohamad gaznavi ,khilji,Ghori,Qasim,Babar invaded India to spread peace and harmony as prescribed in your book..they looted ,slaughterd millions of Indians,destroyed thousands of temples and enslaved helpless women for 800 years….thousands of out Rajpoot women used to commit mass suicide to avoid been rap*d and enslavd by these invading moguls….
@@shehzebimam4991I personally would not mind getting a prospective of the Mughal empire from a descendant of actual Mughals.
wallah Thinking Muslim coming with 🔥I LOVE DR. YAKOOB!!!! please we need more Ottoman info
Amazing work, I am a Muslim from India living in Germany and I love history in general and Ottoman history in particular. May Allah reward you both immensely for this. Keep growing
All well-meaning Muslims have a particular predilection and warm regards to the Ottoman period in particular. And if a Muslim does not, then that person's deen is in question, in my absolutely honest opinion. There are usually 3 types of people that vehemently speak negatively about the Ottoman period, these are 1) "Western" powers who hate to see an Islamic empire thrive 2) Sahyoonis (along with their middle eastern allies) 3) Wahhabi types
@@snakejuce I know a few "Wahhabi types" (Muslim brothers Alhamdulillah) who even though might not be fans of the Ottoman rule, they have their issues, but stay neutral and leave the matter to Allah, which is the best thing to do as Ottomans don't even exist to defend themselves.
@snakejuce Honestly, I have heard more Indians say positive things about the British than Arabs say anything positive about the Ottomans. Which is interesting because the post-Ottoman middle east has not been great.
@@juniorjames7076 Indians adopted British language and culture and are connected to Anglo/British economic, financial, political and legal systems. This is not the case with the Arabs, there was a complete break-up between the Arabs and the Turks post-Ottomans.
@@f1aziz Indians adopted English because India has 50+ languages, and you need some language to communicate. English, not being an Indian language, became that language. Also, before the British left, they had established economic, financial, political, and legal systems, and to continue with them was easier than scrapping out and installing a new system.
Another exceptional guest and episode of TTM. Loved every minute. Especially the reality behind the printing press ban and the partial coffee ban. Thank you as always Br. Jalal!
It's sad to see Ottomans get admiration only from Muslim from Southeast Asia. Forget Arabs, even a lot of Turks don't really give them a fair shake.
it's false actualy. all the people in turkey love southeast asian muslims for their historical boundries yet it's not shown on mainstream media enough.
@F1aziz, anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time knows the vast majority of Turks not only give the Ottomans a fair shake, they go beyond that and form a narrative that many times sweeps many bad things under the rug.
What you're saying was probably true from the 1920s to roughly the 1970s. Their narrative of why they went through a traumatic civilizational defeat was because of the faults of the Ottomans. People born after 1970 generally don't hold on to that narrative, they've gone in the opposite direction.
@@yokartiklol not true 😂😂😂
Brilliant. Dr Yaqoob should write a book to counter the oriental view on Ottoman history.
Thinking Muslim in essence is a top notch source for the revival of Ummatic self esteem motivation and above all bonding and unification
The esteemed guest here provided historic perspective on the topic in a very befitting articulate almost spiritual way
Alhamdulilah for a thoroughly stimulating session. I have been trying to learn islamic history of late and look fwd to Dr Yaakoob book on the Ottoman Empire history.....
Amazing. Would love an episode like this about the Mughals to counter Hindutva rhetoric. Adnan Rashid would be a great guest for this.
Awesome podcast as it always is with Dr. Yakoob!
Would love to have an episode dedicated to the Tanzimat era with hoca.
I like the way Dr Yaqoob pauses and thinks about the question and then asks a counter question in a philosophical way. For example he asks what is moderanity? How do you define modernaity? Is it a way to synchronise or what? And then he build his entire argument around that question. I think all Muslims needs to ask questions and stop believing in things which are put out of context. To understand moderanity we need to understand how our ancestors think about moderanity? When we say knowledge is only in books we should pause and think for a moment and say he what I just heard was also knowledge etc etc.
Such a conscientious and deep thinking speaker, maa shaa Allah, and the interviewer's acceptance of his overturning his whole stance opened up some really worthwhile insights . Jazzakum allahu khairan.
Coffee was actually a part of marital law. It was in the law books written that, If the husband could not or did not provide coffee for the wife, it was grounds for divorce in Ottoman Turkish Law.
The ban of coffee was a Christian Pope because it was considered a muslim drink. When Ottomans withdrew from the battlefield, this bean was left behind. It was illegal, until the pope baptized a bag and called it a Holy Christian drink now. True factoid.
Thank you for this awesome podcast. I will appreciate if Dr. Yakoob can suggest books about ottoman history. Also book about Abdul Hamid Han 2 in English
JazakAllah khayran
Amazing podcast as always. I feel more intelligent and inspired after watching it! I would also love to get a hold of the TTM mug would enjoy drinking my morning brew(coffee) from it! 😊 Have you considered selling such a product?
Excellent discussion! Thank you so much! I would be interested in hearing Dr. Ahmed’s commentary/analysis of Benedict Anderson’s _Imagined Communities_ on the printing press, “simultaneity,” religion, nationalism & the nation state
Thanks for the great guest!
This man is a gem
I am a historian by profession and I can say that his historic and particularly ottoman worldwiev is so clear of prejudictions. A very learned scholar.
I thought coffe was prohibited because the Portuguese controlled the routes where coffee was coming out of, and buying coffee would mean supporting/strengthening the Portuguese kingdom, as Ottomans fought/ were fighting on several fronts with the Portuguese.
Maybe there were those considerations in place as well.
I think the point he's trying to make is that there were multiple considerations including political ones at play. It wasn't simply ignorant people making random rulings, it's a lot more complex and considered than that.
At coffee shops, janissaries were gathering and planning for a coup; they were also do agenda and propaganda against the ottoman sultan. So, due to the intelligence sultan Got from his intelligence servise he made this coffee ban.
YES THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASON, BECAUSE MOST OF THE COFFEE WAS PLANTED IN SOUTH EAST ASIA AND THE PORTUGUESE WERE FIGHTING WITH MUSLIM IN SOUTH EAST ASIA AND INDIA.
Mashalah very useful podcast, thank you and jazakumullahu khayr, The Ottoman history is one of the most neglected in the world, unfortunately the Turkish state is not paying enough attention and resources to explore this 700 years old empire which ruled 32 countries in three continents, i heard once from an islamic historian scholar Sheikh Ragheb Sarjan who is one of the best islamic historian saying some of the main obsticles of exploring the Ottoman history, he said that there are at least 7 million untranslated files in Turkey let alone the other millions of historic files in the balkans, the lavant, north africa and the Caucases, the other obstical he mentioned was the disconnection between the classical old Turkish which was written in arabic and which these files were recorded and the modern Attatorkean latin written modernTurkish. So, the Islamic world especially Turkey needs to alocate huge funds and scholars to explore and record this history deeply and academically. Shukran
Its a conundrum for modern Arab intellectuals. It seems you can't call yourself a modern (or patriotic) Syrian, Egyptian, Tunisian, etc if you have anything good to say about the Ottoman years. Were the Ottoman's to Yemen the equivalent as the French to Algeria or Senegal? Britain to India? I have heard Indians say more positive things about the British than Egyptians or Lebanese say anything positive about the Ottomans.
@@juniorjames7076thats the only reason we have 7 million untranslated files ..Turks but more importantly all islamic world has been seperated and destroyed massivly not just by war but by education before and after ww1 .untill today there is no sign of a peace in omajority of Ottoman led states up untill today.not only muslim states buy also balkan states too.İf Egypt and Lebanon or Algeria talk more positive about french and english in your case,well its very simple to answer .is because they asimilated and genocided those nations really fast…nor because they are angels.Brits went to Australia and New Zealand and killed Maori and Abeogine culturea ib such a short time .they even think Jesus is Maori.İn rotorua churches christ is Maori…Where Turks or Ottomans have let people of the stete live freely in their languages and culture and religion masive portion of their denisty
Give details please. When Sarjan said that ''7 million files are waiting to be translated''? Please type the name ''Halil İnalcık''. Each historian knows that they can start with this monumental historian of Ottoman Empire. There is surely no 7 million non-translated document or else. We are not expecting some discovery of a document coming from some Ottoman Turkish documents in Albania or else. Atatürk is the reason they are standardized in a scientific way in academies- oh and he is the FIRST leader in Turkish history that called a well-known respected theologian and Quran scholar and ask him to translate the book to common Turkish.
@@mertnecati875 the lectures of the islamic historian Dr Ragheb alserjani on the history of the ottoman empire is in youtube, a total of 11 lectures in arabic, the quote i made on my post is on the first and second lectures, youtube will not allow me to post the link but if you copy and paste this on you tube it will popup.
قصة الدولة العثمانية: محسنة الصوت - د. راغب السرجانى
@@juniorjames7076😲😲😲
💯years gone already
Still ‼️
Great podcast, thank you!!
How about us the audience; can we order a The Thinking Muslim mug?
We shall make this happen inshallah.
@@TheThinkingMuslimjust put them on a website for sale jeez. ‘We’ll make it happen’. Talking like it’s as difficult as reviving the Ottoman Empire 🤦🏻
as a turk I am proud of the ottomans and how they served islam over 600 years
Platforming such intellectuals is paramount to decolonizing the Muslim mind.
1:32:12 I love this point about finding alternative, and more wholesome, ways of continuously teaching history. Almost as if it needs to be a part of the generational culture
Liked how you first described the devşirme system around 54:00 mark and than went "this is what it means, now make up your mind accordingly".
Better example then Mimar Sinan would have been Sokullu Mehmet Paşa who was the grand vizier during the height of ottoman power. He was originally an orthodox christian Serb. We know this because when he visited these lands, his mother seeing the birthmark on his face recognized him. After that he made his brother the head of Serbian Orhadox church.
And there are many many more examples of devşirme grand viziers and pashas (including made famous by Turkish soap operas, İbrahim Paşa)
I listened to him for 30min. He didn't answer the question of why the muslim ottoman rulers banned printing press. The Europeans were against it as well. European will not play with words as he does. He doesn't accept the reality and plays with words. If they did ban printing press they didn't want to change. The so-called muslim scholars likr yakoob ahmad still cling undefenceable.
Can you please provide the evidence that they did? The recorded fatwa or government law?
Jared Rubin. Rulers, Religion and Riches. Chapter 5. Page 105.
@@notadanethat isn’t a primary source.
Also, Ahmet Kuru writes that in 1727, İbrahim Mutafarrika petitioned the Ottoman Sultan and it was then allowed but it was restricted to printing of non religious texts. The primary text is Firman of Ahmed III. [Quoted in Kuru, islam, authoritarianism, and underdevelopment. 2019. Chapter 7]
@@notadaneso it wasn’t banned in that case, it was allowed but districted but even that is not primary source
May Allah Accept your works, and make it a means of acceptance and Guidance for the Ummah!
اَمِين يَا رَبَّ الْعَالَمِيْن
Sorry to be the one to say it but: CAN YOU PLEASE JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION? It’s very simple there’s no need for any philosophical argument! Did the printing press play a role or not? If so then how? If we’ve got it wrong just tell us!
It's a wrong question......
@@AmirKhan-pm8cb :) Yes of course it is my brother🤭🙈🙊🙈👍😂
My goodness! so much beating around the bush, bhai simply answer the question in a simple way 😅
Exactly! It’s because he has no firm solid knowledge based critical position, but rather an emotional nostalgic approach.
Great podcast! Any recommendations about books on the history if the ottoman empire? Thank you
Sh. Mustafa Sabri has never received due discussion of his contributions. Please find a scholar who would shed light on him. JAK.
Look if I see you in a cafe, I'm not gonna ask you any annoying questions, but I'll try and find your book and maybe ask you to autograph it cuz this is an amazing talk bro.
Great topic. Also sorry, this is kinda unrelated but can you please try and schedule AH Murad again one of these days? Jzk to both of you.
Great topic? Really|? Muslims are some of the poorest and least educated around the world. Instead of dealing with real issues that affect everyday life we have people masturbating to this fantastical ahistorical nonsense of Imperialistic porn, that won't help any Muslims?
Answers are dodgy. It is best to learn from mistakes of history. Ottomans were far far from perfect.
Correct. The guest does not criticise the ottomans in any single way. Totally disingenuous.
the Ottomans were the Best Islamic empire ... why we should criticize them ??? Go and criticize your dictators in the middle if you have balls ... @@abdulkhaled5145
Interesting and informative, thank you and your guest. Would just kindly suggest avoiding click bait titles that throw out all the subtlety in the discussion out the window.
May I suggest recounting all the scientific miracles of the Quran, like we created all living things from water, we brought down iron, we created everything from nothing and are expanding the universe, etc. When did these things become known? It would be very interesting. Thank you.
Listened to 15 minutes and got nothing out of it. Very round about nothing direct . Ottomans did fail to industrialise.
Lol what an utterly ill-informed take ...
Was wondering if only I felt like that. Using deconstruction as a deflection is such a cop-out.
Yeah this guy just seems to waffle without making any coherent points
@@notadaneso a historian teaching nuances of human history is dismissed after listening to 15 minutes by an absolute dilhole?
Farangi aulads are debunked and can't handle it
Excellent discussion. I wonder what sources, authors, and books on the ottomans aren't the typical subject matter.
His description of devşirme was quiet wrong.
The reason they took mainly non Muslims to become sultan's personal guards or statemen was so they wouldn't have any connection to outside and be able to have claims to power! Only a small part of the forces were devşirme (yeni çeri) so not every non muslims had to give away their sons but a small part when needed and mostly they competed to give away their sons for a great future. That is also the reason the sultans mainly married harem girls.
Adamın anlattığı ile senin söylediğin şeyin alakası yok.
@@ozanbayrak562 Nasil? Yani anlattigi yanlis benim anlattigim tarihtir.
@@Bizmyurt Adam, devşirme sisteminin nasıl olduğu ile ilgili konuşmadı ki! Videonun neredeyse tamamı Osmanlı dönemine karşı oryentalist bakış açısının ve bakış açısının sorulara bile etki etmesinden bahsetti ve tarihi bakışın nasıl olması gerektiğinden bahsetti; devşirme konusu oradan açıldı.
@@ozanbayrak562 Kacirmisin, tabi anlatti yoksa bosuna yazmazdim!
@@Bizmyurtdevşirme konusuna kısaca değindi ama videodan anladığı kadarıyla insaların aklında devşirme denince abd deki kölelik sistemi gibi bir şey canlanıyor, devşirmenin ne olduğunu tam olarak anlamamışlar. Hoca da ona kosaca değindi ama sizin dediğiniz noktalara değinip önce devşirmenin mantığını bir açıklaması gerekiyordu. 1 2 nokta gözetilerek değil birden çok yapı düşünülerek yapılmış bir sistem devşirmelil çünkü. Ama hoca da tam da bu yüzden bana soru sormanızı değil tarihi biraz araştırıp bu oryantalist bakış açısından kurtulmanızı istiyorum dedi.
Thank you, that was an education.
I found Turkish TV years ago. I used to send money to assist with translations. My interest began in earnest after watching the Abdul Hamid II episodes on Turkish TV not "western Netflix" which has nothing of interest for me.
I dont see how this guy can defend the Ottoman taking Boys from the Christian communites conscipting them as soliders and converting them to Islam against their will. Some Christian mothers used to brake their own son legs so they could not being conscripted. So that was not a good thing
😮
He didn't defend it, he just said it was better than the usual alternative back then, which usually involved the child being slaughtered, mother being you know what. I mean we all know the mongols and how they were.
Its was like forced drafting! And they werent force to convert they became muslim because they grew up in a muslim environment
Jazaa kAllahu khairah fid daarain. May Allah increase both of you and us all, in ilm and hilm and take work from us, for the guidance and welfare of the Ummah
Thank you for again igniting the fact that we should be proud of ourselves
i need a cup too. merch shop? lol 👀
Inshallah soon
I should say it was interesting to watch. Most of Turks aren't even aware of these myth's in general. But Mr.Yakoop seems to have a certain level of understanding about the Ottoman era. But Ottoman's didn't called themselves as an Empire the word was (Devlet-i Ali or Aliyye) meaning (Büyük, yüce devlet) in Turkish. Supreme or Great State in English. No need to describe themselves other than that.
True. Just to add to that, Urdu-speaking Muslims call it "Usmaani Khilafat". The word khilafah is always emphasized as they were brought up by their mothers with the idea that if or when Khalifa calls upon them they are ready to give their lives in an instant. My own family narrated how the womenfolk gave up all their gold, to the Khilafat Movement in the 1920s.
Correction: The majority of people in Syria and Egypt are believed to have become Muslim by the 12th century not the Ottoman period.
Reasons for moving at the end, huge respect.
I am glad we are spreading awareness. Alhamdulillah cuz we still have people who are awake. Please do not forget Palestines in your prayers.
Ottomans did not have much population at the beginning, they were the smallest 'beylik', but on the frontier. They made alliances with Christians to make up for the deficit. After they crossed the straights, they started recruiting from Christians. Keep in mind that local Christians hated Venetians more,
and they would prefer Ottomans over Venetians. To be selected for the service was very competitive, and they did not view it as slavery. Talented kids would be sent to palace school.
What’s the criteria for being khalifa. Simply put, external validation.
The only American treaty introduced, written, signed in a language other than English was Turkish.
The Russians, the French, British, Japanese, Irish.
The Hyderbad Indian, Egyptian, Persian , even king Faisal took wife, from the sultans and Pashas for prestige. The wife of Faisal walked ahead of him into all kingdom business, he opened the doors for her. She called council of religious clerics to meet as their head. Even after Faisal’s death she commanded respect and direction in the Kingdom. Influence in Army. Many Pashas daughters were trained to command armies and were taken as wives by Kings and Emperors. Even Ataturks daughter was a fighter pilot.
Many Arab heads of government, like in Morroco would wash their identity with Turkish identity and titles. The recognized power by default becomes the defender of the faith.
The whole corpus of questions are wrong :)
This reminds me Prof Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas. Decades ago, he advised to always question the validity of a question, the assumptions behind the question.
I guess its a conundrum for modern Arab intellectuals. It seems you can't call yourself a modern (or patriotic) Syrian, Egyptian, Tunisian, etc if you have anything good to say about the Ottoman years. Were the Ottoman's to Yemen the equivalent as the French to Algeria or Senegal? Britain to India? I have heard Indians say more positive things about the British than Egyptians or Lebanese say anything positive about the Ottomans.
This was a treat to listen to
Fact check at 32:15: I believe Western Europe got the printing press much earlier than 1700. Johannes Gutenberg invented it in 1440 and cities adopted it as early as 1450.
i think he says just that, that the Gutenberg press came about in the 1450s
He meant mass production of the press began in 1700s post industrial revolution
@@mappilakty The industrial revolution merely began in the mid 1750s
Ottoman's main problem was demographic. Whille the population of Europe was increasing starting from 1700's, Ottoman population was declining. Their policy towards the Europeans were based on exploiting the rivalries between them. That was not always successful especially after the rise of Russia. Printing press issue is exaggerated. Also, culturally they were still nomadic, and did not focus that much on agriculture. I think what caused its demise is
inapptitude of the Union and Progress party and their hatred for Ottomans.
I didn't find this discussion fruitful tbh. Dr Yakoob is going against the western colonial narrative, that's good. However he doesn't have a substantiated alternative narrative. His points are speculative in nature. Had he shown us some real statistics or references regarding the literacy in Ottomans despite the absence of printing press, it would be more reliable. It's a statistical fact that without physical copy of a book, it is hard to keep up the literacy rates. Certain eager personalities will definitely find their way to reach to books, for sure. However reach of knowledge to the masses relies on availability of physical copies.
But does the western narrative has any evidence?
I think that the problem is that discussion about Ottoman history amongst the Islamic political activist milieu isn't just discussion of a historical era. It's attempting to revive the idea of a Caliphate. They aspire to the restablishment of a similar system in the future. That is partly why Yacoob doesn't have an alternative narrative to promote. We all saw the rise of ISIS. Most people don't want that.
Yes you're right he never made a claim without evidence or proposed an alternative narrative in this podcast, he simply deconstructed some popularised notions which is a good first step for the average muslim to understand before starting off with false assumptions. At the current state of the umma this content is much needed. Maybe not for a history student but very fruitful for the masses imo.
@@oayysz8909 deconstruction is not enough without an alternative narrative. After all, as Muslims we have ask for evidence based on Quranic injunctions.
You haven't understood anything if you're still thinking in terms of literacy rates. He mentioned 3 points regarding this:
1. Major point - knowledge production in the Muslim world placed more emphasis on the oral tradition as opposed the written one. Even written books and poems were expected to be memorised and authors would teach their books, as opposed to readers simply reading them. Hence unlike in Western Europe, low literacy rate does not mean low knowledge production or low access to knowledge.
2. Minor point - data collection in Ottoman censuses was different. They counted households, not individuals as such. That impacts your data on literacy rates.
3. Minor point - literacy rate is not a reflection of intelligence or sophistication of thought (unlike in Western Europe), due once again to the predominance of the oral tradition.
It was an economic and a religious reason that for this question, it was only the Qur'aan which was not allowed to be printed in the printing press. The economic reason was that then the scribes would lose out on economic aspects, and so they would not allow the Qur'aan to be printed by a machine. The religious reason was that they though it was a disrespect to the Qur'aan to be printed in a machine.
I would like to hear a historian speak about the islamic division between sunni and shia and early islam etc
It was a political movement by some one to gain power
It's like mixing Trump with human rights
It's all political they try to divide people on anything even when there is none
How would one divide a Muslim nation
Make a division interpretation then pretend to be the savior of that division
if they do cared about muslims they won't be k their own brother fo power
If we wanted there wouldn't be other peoples left but we didn't want to because we are Turks and Muslims.
anyone catch the name of the journalist that Dr Yakoob mentions at 44:04?
edit: and the name of the scholar at 45:28?
Kasim Kopuz?
Murat bardakçı
Sahih al-Bukhari 2928
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."
Eye opening
1:00:00 bro what do you mean turks and kurds converting in the ottoman period?? Dr they were muslims 300+ years before that you talking about Almuqadimah Dr have you even read it? sooo many funny thing being said here
There's a general understanding that Arabs became Muslim during Rasul Allah's time, reality on the ground was, plenty of pagan Arabs were becoming Muslim even as late as Abbasid period. No group of people ever became Muslim in their entirety in one go, Islamisation as a process is a long and very slow process.
He doesn't have a clue about Ottomons or their history. Just some vague assumptions with no evidences or references.
@Muhammadarubah8672.
It seems his intentions were good and he does bring up philosophical points which are quite interesting.
But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of Ottoman history, he does make some really odd mistakes. Like the one you pointed out, even the Empire from who's ashes the Ottoman empire was built (Seljuks) was a Muslim empire.
How in the world does this guy not know that? Some random guy like me sitting in America knows that and a so-called expert in Ottoman history doesn't? It is very interesting.
Turks started accepting Islam in 751 with the tribes of Karluk, Yagma and Cilgiz accepted Islam and then started spreading it ot the other tribes. The Ottoman empire didn't come for another 300+ years like you said.
@@najmaalikhan Even though his knowledge of the history is quite lacking, I still felt he had something to offer. It was still worth a watch and it was still fascinating.
Surely it would have been better if he actually know Ottoman history lol
You say you’re a historian, interested only in history, not in the justification of a history! Yet you cite no sources to justify your narrative!
Exactly. No sources. No books. No evidences. Just talk, mostly
Mashallah Dr. Yakoob, what a gem ❤
'So if you think devshirme system is like colonial slavery, it was not that bad. They didn't make a scene with it. And the villages would have thus a foothold in the palace. Of course, no one is happy to be conquered, to be conquered. But I don't want to legitimise Ottomans.'
Masha’Allah… I hope you all give this man SOME TYPE of leeway & an try to understand what he’s trying to SAY without any prejudice, biases & jus listen to his perspective. The level of DIFFICULTY in trying to explain “things like, True State History/Religion History” in this era/generation is by far one of the MOST DIFFICULT Things to do. Especially in a LANGUAGE like ENGLISH in which it Radicalizes, Disorientates, & Confuses each & every TRANSLATION. I can BET you whenever he’s done with these lectures he will always feel like he “DID’NT do well & he COULD’VE explained it better..” but Masha’Allah brother WE all got you Insha’Allah, we’re jus in a time of سوء الفهم. ☪️☪️
Brilliant Podcast
Asalamu Aleykum bro, I would really love if you would asked Dr. Yaqoob Ahmed if he could write book on how to approach or Change the mindset of the narrative about history. I absolutely love his approach may Allah SWT reward him in this dunya and hereafter ameen.
39:57 absolutely floored when he said “khaad which the Somalis and Yemenis chew” 🤣🤣🤣😂😂
Ma'sha'Allah shayhk, many of us desire a Thinking Muslim cup. The cup for many, I'm sure, represents the essence of the wahi & purpose of/for the shariah for all humanity.
Good God. There is so much wrong I can’t believe it. As a Turk this is truly shocking. It’s not cause he’s isn’t Turk if he was Turkish I’d have said the same. But this is truly truly shocking.
So much false information I’m not even able to get into all of it without having to write a book.
I’m really impressed of how many people buy into this.
1:10:44 In my humble opinion, we acknowledge only five Caliphs: Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه, Uthman رضي الله عنه, Umar رضي الله عنه, Ali رضي الله عنه, and Umar Bin Abdul Aziz. The legitimacy of the subsequent Caliphates-namely the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman Caliphates-is subject to debate due to several reasons.
1. Method of Selecting New Caliphs:
The approach to choosing new caliphs in these empires is seen by some as being at variance with established principles, raising questions about the legitimacy of the leaders chosen.
2. Adherence to Islamic Law and Justice:
The perception is that the laws and justice administered were not consistently in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. There appeared to be a selective adoption of laws from the Quran and Sunnah, with some being disregarded or neglected.
3. Lifestyle Choices:
The manner of living and the lifestyle choices made by some caliphs appear to have been incongruous with the principles and values of Islam. For example, the opulence and extravagance displayed by certain caliphs in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods-such as the construction of palatial residences, indulgence in luxuries, and hosting of lavish feasts-are often contrasted with the simpler, more austere lifestyles of the early Caliphs like Abu Bakr and Umar رضي الله عنهما. Such disparities raise questions about the alignment of these later caliphs' lifestyles with the teachings of Islam, which emphasize humility, simplicity, and concern for the less fortunate.
4. Propagation of Tribalism:
The promotion of tribal affiliations and loyalties seems to have overridden the universal principles of brotherhood and equality in Islam.
Recognizing and addressing these concerns is our responsibility. We must uphold our values and not deviate from the righteous path, being cautious not to blindly follow any leader merely out of affection or allegiance, but to hold them to the standards set by our faith.
"We,"? Is this a scholarly take?
There is a genuine and strong opinion that the Khalifah must be Qurayshi, which means the last Abbasid Khalifah in Baghdad Al- Musta'sim was legit according to this view. Their alleged vices did not cancel the legitimacy of their rule.
would love such a podcast on the history of muslim rule in India, the good the bad and the ugly. Just like you , i am from the indian subcontinent luckily my ancestors there became muslims just like yours , I live in the UK now, but would love to learn about muslim history in India from a muslim or even a neutral perspective. I have the hindu perspective which says the muslim rulers were all bad with possible exception of Akbar, the rest carried out wholesale atrocities against the hindus. demolishing their temples forcefully converting people like our forefathers, killing hindus in the millions. I know this is just Hihutva rubbish but would like a balanced and a real history of muslims in India, this would also be a good way to counter the none sense that comes from most hindus and helps the poor muslims in India who on a daily basis have to deal with a hostile and tyrannical hindu nationalism, maybe even have an honest and balanced hindu historian / intellectual. Would be good to have a none muslim just like you had clive stafford smith on a few weeks ago, and may Allah bless and protect that man and the amazing work he does. Alhamdullilah so glad to see your channel growing, I still remember when you had just a few thousand subscribers
I guess its a conundrum for modern Arab intellectuals. You can't call yourself a modern (or patriotic) Syrian, Egyptian, Tunisian, etc if you have anything good to say about the Ottoman years. Were the Ottoman's to Yemen the equivalent as the French to Algeria or Senegal? Britain to India? I have heard Indians say more positive things about the British than Egyptians or Lebanese say anything positive about the Ottomans.
Sad that you are blinkered as is evident from your loaded language. India began its decline with muslim rule which gradually impoverished the country over a few centuries and the British made it worse as they were looters too.
The facts about the atrocities are based mostly on "triumphant" recordings of contemporary Muslim chroniclers most of them courtiers too. As for Akbar (whom many contemporary chroniclers thought was fairly Unislamic) had his share of such things but he did tax muslim farmers 10% and Hindu farmers over 60% of the produce (source Irfan Habib's student Musevi who is also a historian). And the farmers stopped farming as they were broke and quite a few were imprisoned or killed.Instead of using abuse better spend some time learning the truth for a change. The simple fact of the absence of ancient seats of learning and temples(all destroyed) in North India compared to the deep south is the tip of the iceberg as to what happened. At least try to read the First volume of Will Durant's Story of civilisation(neutral) might perhaps open your eyes.( A few well educated Pakistanis have begun to have a critical look at their pre 1947 history)
@@juniorjames7076once again you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about lol😂😂😂. In Egypt and the rest of North Africa and the levant all the respectable Arab intellectuals all praise the ottoman period just like the mamluks or the Abbasids or the ummayeds so you should research what you are talking about
@@user-vb6df4sd8d I heard that the most negative thing they did in North Africa was that they did nothing. They didn't do atrocities or oppress them like the colonialists, but they didn't also build schools, infrastructure and hospitals.
@@narendraadiwibowo162 not exactly lots of things were developed in the mainland ottoman land plus the the rest of the vassal states so both parties benefited a lot. Listen to be clear the 3 main islamic states: the ummayeds,Abbasids,ottomans operated similarly to the US nowadays where all the different parts operated somewhat independently in domestic matters while you answered to the the central government ( or where the muslim capital was at the time)
I enjoyed the discussion. Where are you based? I do not mind having a discussion with you on a particular topic.
this is just an apologist argument...not a historical analysis..just bunch of fancy vague wordings..but no historical fact based information....just answer the questions not give generals about ottoman history and finish it by asking the audience to just study the history themselves
I thought I'd listen for a while, but I couldn't resist. This man really has very poor knowledge of Turkish and Ottoman history. In addition, I recommend you to listen to these topics from a Turkish expert in his field. For example, İlber Ortaylı, Ahmet Şimşirgil
Prophet Mohammad: Leave the Turks alone, as long as they leave you. Alhamdulillah we Muslim Turks thankfull for Allah being the soldiers of Allah! Allah has gives us something speciale we can not ignore! But yes after the Ottoman Empire collapsed 1923 A lot has change unfortunately! They let us change our clothes, writing, azan, forbidden quran, ended the Khalifa, hang a lot of Islamic Scholars etc etc. But Allah is all knowing! InsAllah when Mahdi AS appears we join all together!
The prophet Muhammad sws was hating Turks
i need subtitle, but not the automatic one.
Which hanafis don't believe that Khalifa must be from Quresh???
We have a 1 to 1000 ratio of historians to scholars. While all are Important I think that's where our biggest problem is. The majority of Muslims don’t know our history from 3 decades back let alone centuries. Please someone with knowledge of our history put together a series of books, videos, a course, anything, just tell me where to type in card info, please.